[Husker] Miami hires Golden

[Steve Reichenbach]

While personnel matters are private, Perlman was well within his
perogatives as Chancellor of the University to comment publicly about
Pelini's public actions while representing the University.  It is
routine and even expected that leaders of academic institutions (and
other organizations) commend or take issue with public actions by
employees.  If there was any "discipline" (and I doubt that there was),
then that would be a personnel matter and nothing has been publicized.

I don't believe that Perlman was responding to some pressure from
donors or heavy hitters as questioned by this post and an earlier
post.  In my opinion (having observed him and dealt with him a little),
that would be quite unlike Perlman.  What is there in Internet forums
that people look for conspiracies where simple explanations suffice?
Can't this be as simple Perlman making his own judgment and acting
accordingly?

In my opinion, too much has been made of this matter because of this
crazy need to come up with wild backstories --- for example, the
suggestion that Pelini thought about going to Miami because Perlman
embarrassed him strings together two rumors, neither of which appears
to have any foundation.  It is especially silly for people who don't
think Pelini should have been chided in the first place to continue
to blow it up into a major issue.

I am a professor at UNL and am a strong supporter of the university and
the it's athletic programs.  I was glad that the University made clear
that it's standards were not upheld and I would have been disappointed
if the University hadn't make that clear.

Still, this is a minor issue.  It was what it was.  Let it drop.

For the record, here is what the AP story quoted Perlman saying:

"I think it was very unfortunate," Perlman said, "and I think it's
something we'll have to address with Bo."

"Bo has a lot of passion for his football team," Perlman said, "and
there is a strong upside to that. But again, overall, the conduct was
unfortunate last night."

"There is a part of the culture of intercollegiate athletics that
involves coaches talking strongly to players," Perlman said. "That's
unfortunate it had to happen on national television. I think that
probably occurs in a lot of programs."

Perlman commended Pelini for his passion and recognized the strong
upside of his passion.  He noted that such strong talking to players
is a part of the culture of intercollegiate athletcs.  About all he
had to say was that it was unfortunate that Pelini's outbursts were
captured by cameras of a national broadcast and that they didn't
reflect well on the University.  Isn't that the truth?

Can't Perlman think Pelini is a great coach and a passionate advocate
for his team and at the same time think that Pelini got too carried away?
I feel that way, so how is it so implausible that Perlman feels that way.

Finally, I doubt that Pelini has such a problem with any of this as
people imagine.  I find the simpler explanation that Pelini recognized
that he got a little too "animated" (his own word) and so he apologized.
Can't that be the end of the story?


> >   This probably
> > never would have happened had the Chancellor not publically embarrassed him.
> > I believed it was handled badly. That it should have been TO privately
> > demanding that he make a public apology.  Employee discipline should not be
> > done publically and should come from the direct supervisor.
> 
> We have no way of knowing whether Perlman's statement was a factor, but 
> it's plausible. You are correct that employee discipline should be done 
> privately, and Perlman certainly knows that. Why then did he do it this 
> way? Was he getting pressure from some heavy hitters to "do something 
> about Bo"?